What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooleylinguistlist.org.

[Although this book was published nearly ten years ago, we agreed to solicit a review for it when we received it late last year because of its enduring intrerest. The reviewer is in no way responsible for the delay! -- Eds.]

SYNOPSIS

This book is divided into three parts. Part 1, which consists of the theoretical aspects of the investigation on iterative constructions, focuses on the semantic classification of situational plurality. Part 2 is divided into four subparts describing situational plurality in several languages: part A analyses languages with specialized grammatical means to express multiplicative, distributive, and iterative (in particular, Aleut, Evenki, Itelmen, Chamalal, Klamath, Asiatic Eskimo, and Nivkh); part B focuses on the analysis of languages with grammatical means to express the iterative (Ewe, Turkic languages, Lithuanian, Russian and other Slavic languages, Hausa, Modern Literary Arabic, English, and Chukchee); part C studies those languages where tense plus iterative adverbials express the iterative (French, German, Modern Literary East Armenian, Hindi and Urdu, and Japanese); and part D is dedicated to the employment of adverbials as iterative expressions (as occurs in Indonesian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, and Chinese). Lastly, part 3 is dedicated to the study of alternative interpretations of the plurality (in particular, of plurality and verbal quantification). In addition to the bibliographical references, the book contains several indexes listing authors, subjects, and languages.

This collective monograph, which has been prepared by the Language Workshop of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics, focuses on the study of situational plurality across languages. (Reference to ''Author'' below is to the collective authorship.) In particular, the aim of the book is to reveal the system of the sub-meanings of situational plurality, in particular, the indefinite plurality of situations. One of the most relevant theoretical assumptions of the book, which is treated in detail in Chapter 1, is that situational plurality can be coded by all possible means (which seem to conform a functional/semantic field consisting of lexical, grammatical, and contextual factors, according to Khrakvsky), but does not form an integral system. Besides, it is assumed that situational plurality is favored by certain semantic and grammatical conditions. For instance, it is argued that certain semantic classes of verbs (denoting non-homogeneous processes), some adverbials (like adverbials of cyclicity, interval, etc.), the imperfective aspect, the participation of plural actants, and extra-clause factors (such as compound sentences with double conjunctions, converbs, etc.) facilitate the plural interpretation of the situation.

According to the author, the verbs most freely combining with the meanings of plurality are those denoting non-homogeneous (terminative) processes (e. g. 'to build'), whilst temporary states and homogeneous processes are less natural to express plural actions. On the opposite, verbs denoting permanent properties and relations do not combine with the meanings of plurality (like verbs denoting the properties of objects or types of objects, e. g. 'this elevator takes five persons', and stable mental or emotional states, like ''speak'', ''hate (music)'', ''respect'', etc.).

Chapter 1 also offers a classification of semantic types of situational plurality. This classification, which constitutes one of the theoretical bases of the book, is systematically employed in Part 2. The author describes the typology of situational plurality according to two attributes: (i) the way in which the plural situations take place on time (a) a plurality of situations occurs at one period of time; (b) each of the repeated situations belonging to the plurality exists at a separate period of time, and (ii) the identity amongst the actants of the situation, (a) identical sets of actants take part in each of the repeated situations belonging to the plurality, (b) the sets of actants taking part in each of the repeated situations are not completely identical. The combination of these attributes gives rise to the following types of situational pluralities, according to the author: multiplicative (combining attributes ia, iia) (e. g. 'The boy tapped at the window for several minutes'), distributive (terminal) (with attributes ia, iib) (e. g. 'In a week's time the fox carried away all the neighbor's chicks one by one'), and iterative (non-terminal) (with attributes ib, iia) (e. g. 'The boy visits his granny every year', 'the patient coughs at night').

The author also examines the coding of multiplicative, distributive and iterative verbs in the languages of the sample (Part 2). Regarding multiplicative and semelfactive verbs, two ways of coding are proposed: lexical forms and grammatical means. According to the author, multiplicative verbs are universally onomatopoeic (like Arabic ''qa'qa'a'' 'crackle'). On the other hand, grammatical semelfactives can be formed by adding affixes to lexical multiplicatives, and vice versa (e. g. ''tunkidi'' 'push once', tunki- tunkidi 'push many times', in Chamalal; in Uzbek ''vov'' 'woof', ''vov qili'' 'bark once', ''vov-vov-qil'' 'bark many times'). It is also noticed that quite often multiplicative verbs express a multidirectional motion, such as ''ners-u-durs anel'' 'come in and go out' in Armenian, or ''gnal gal'' 'walk to and from'. These verbs are called alternatives. Alternatives may be coded grammatically by means of verb derivation or by adverbial expressions.

The distributive meaning may be marked by means of several types of plural markers, according to the author. The markers may hold both on the verb (the plurality of situations) and on the noun phrase (the plurality of the individuals), as in Russian (verb prefix+plural noun); just on the verb, like in Eskimo (by a special verb suffix); or just on noun phrases, as in Vietnamese (i.e. noun reduplication). In Indo- European languages, like German, French, there are means like 'one by one', 'each one', etc. From a cross-linguistic perspective, distributives are usually verbs of specific physical action and movement in space. From a morphological perspective, distributive verbs may be either non-derivative (lexical, e. g. ''distribute'', ''hand'', etc.) or derivative (reduplication, affixation). Distribution may be also expressed by means of reciprocals (like in Turkic languages). The author also points out that even completed action can express distribution (mostly, a distributive object, rather than the subject).

The iterative meaning is expressed by lexical, word-formational and grammatical means. Among the lexical means, the most important role belongs to adverbials of cyclicity (like ''every minute'', ''annually'', etc.), interval (like ''seldom'', ''very seldom'', ''sometimes'', etc.) and habituality (like ''usually'' and ''habitually''). In addition to adverbials, there are other means of expressing iterativity, like reduplication, iterative verb suffixes, analytical aspect constructions and forms of unreal moods, amongst others. The author also distinguishes between two different semantic types of intervals in iterative situations: intervals that are larger than normal, on the one hand, and intervals that are shorter or smaller than normal. The former type gives rise to what is called a discontinuative meaning, whilst the latter is referred to as frequentative. The coding of both meanings is basically based on verbal markers and adverbials (like ''from time to time'', ''often'', etc.).

EVALUATION

This book is an invaluable contribution to the cross-linguistic study of situational plurality. The most important contribution of the book is the attempt of establishing a set of semantic and formal criteria both to

classify situational plurality across languages and to relate these semantic contents with grammatical coding. In sum, this book satisfies the methodological premises of modern typology, such as the combination of descriptive data and theory. Here, I would like to suggest some comments.

Comments on Part 1

Part 1 would have required a more general state of affairs, considering works on plural events and aspect within both formal semantics and lexical-semantics (Henk J. Verkuyl, James Pustejovsky, Beth Levin Hovav, etc.).

Sometimes, the notion of situational plurality is confusing. In effect, the label ''situation'' seems to refer to several grammatical and semantic units, like verb, predicate, and event. It might be useful the employment of different labels to differ at least between plural predicates (more related to Aktionsart or lexical aspect) and plural events (more related to the number of actions and the number of actants).

On the other hand, I would have expected at least a brief explanation on certain assertions. For instance, the author says that ''temporary states and homogeneous processes are less natural to express plural actions'', but there is not a theoretical or an empirical argumentation to demonstrate it. In another part, the author claims that multiplicative verbs are universally onomatopoeic, but I wonder if it might be just the opposite, that is, that onomatopoeic verbs tend to be multiplicative.

On page 13, it is said: ''the verb has no grammatical category which would play the role as the category of number in nouns by regularly expressing the meanings of the singularity vs. the plurality of situations''. A recent work by Corbett (2000) has demonstrated that there are indeed languages with this category.

On page 18, it is said: ''the most representative characteristic of distribution is that the number of situations making up a plurality is equal to the number of individual representatives of the combined actant'', but, as was argued in Langendoen (1978), distribution does not always involve a one-by-one relation between the number of individuals and the number of events (for instance, in a sentence like ''His classmates had to bake a cake for the party'', it is not only true a situation in which each classmate had to bake one cake, but also a situation where several sets of two or more than two classmates baked each one a cake).

Khrakvsky claims that another important feature of distribution is that situations repeated during a period of time can in reality occur either in succession, i. e. in different moments of the same period, or simultaneously. But it seems to me that this faculty is also possible in the collective reading. For instance, a sentence like ''John and Mary wrote this book'' is true in a situation in which John wrote part of the book during a period of time x and Mary did it during a period of time y.

Lastly, I would like to make some comments on the examples in Part 1. The examples are not always glossed morpheme by morpheme, and then it is difficult to contrast the English translation with the analysis of the original language. As a consequence, the reader has to assume that the analysis of the example is correct.

Comments on Part 2

I have just a few comments on Part 2. First, I have noticed that the languages in Part 2 are not always treated in the same way. Regarding bibliographical sources, for instance, there are considerable asymmetries between Slavic languages and other Indo- European languages treated in the book, such as English, French, and German. I suspect that iterative constructions have been studied in detail in those languages. In relation to Chinese, it is not said what is meant by the term Chinese, that is, if it refers to Mandarin Chinese, Jinyu Chinese, etc.

Carmen Conti is assistant professor of the department of Spanish at the University of Jaén (Spain). She is the author of a book on semantic roles from a cross-linguistic viewpoint (Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid). Nowadays, her research is focused on lexical and morphological ditransitivity across languages.